Lossy or lossless, can you tell....FIGHT :)

strumjoughlamps

http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality

Babones

I think I remember this one from a previous thread.

Moss

5/6 - all but the Mozart one

I can definitely hear a clear difference when played back to back, but don't care too much generally

ThePrettyDamned

I thought this might be a nef file comparison after my own tests, I decided 12 bit lossy works... 

I'll have a go at the audio when I can borrow dad's new bose headphones. 

duotone

I got 1/6 correct

RandallFlagg

Through Apple earbuds on iPad I only got 3/6.

Through the Mac, Fosusrte ausio interface and Event TR8s I would hope to do better.

I keep all my music as 320kbps MP3 or 256 if its iTunes store downloads. It's plenty good enough. 

At 50 years old there's even less of the high and low end that I hear anyway

crunchman

duotone said:

I got 1/6 correct

I was better than that but only just.

I think it does depend on the style of music.  A lot of that didn't have prominent cymbals.  You can hear something in the high end on the cymbals on the lower quality formats.  The one that did have more prominent cymbals was one of the ones I got right.

strumjoughlamps

RandallFlagg said:

Through Apple earbuds on iPad I only got 3/6.

Through the Mac, Fosusrte ausio interface and Event TR8s I would hope to do better.

I keep all my music as 320kbps MP3 or 256 if its iTunes store downloads. It's plenty good enough. 

At 50 years old there's even less of the high and low end that I hear anyway

Age is a good point, there is a hearing test thingy on the web and me, the wife and the 3 kids all in the same room did it and the kids could hear the tone way beyond me and the missus

RandallFlagg

crunchman said:

duotone said:

I got 1/6 correct

I was better than that but only just.

I think it does depend on the style of music.  A lot of that didn't have prominent cymbals.  You can hear something in the high end on the cymbals on the lower quality formats.  The one that did have more prominent cymbals was one of the ones I got right.

Steel string acoustic guitar can be quite telling on a poorly encoded file as well.

sinbaadi

I determined long ago that a good quality MP3 is fine enough to enjoy a song.  I got 3 right and of the other 3 chose the 320kbps mp3 twice.  I actually chose the 128kbps MP3 for the classical piece.

That being said I think a fixed time for "buffering" would make it a fairer test.  I have a fast internet connection but there is still a noticeable extra moment between clicking the play arrow and the lossless audio starting, compared with the MP3s.

strumjoughlamps

crunchman said 

I think it does depend on the style of music.  A lot of that didn't have prominent cymbals.  You can hear something in the high end on the cymbals on the lower quality formats.  The one that did have more prominent cymbals was one of the ones I got right.

Another good point and one that makes me choose vinyl over cd..

Paul_C

I listened on my (fairly decent) stereo which my PC is plugged into, though not very loud, and got 1/6 (I mostly chose the 320kbps MP3s).

I'll listen again tomorrow louder and see if I can do better

grungebob

3/6 using headphones into my laptop.

it was easier to tell by picking out one instrument and listening for clarity rather than the song as a whole

Skipped

I haven't taken the test (on a Laptop) but I like talking about it.

When I can be bothered I am going to see if I can fall asleep to a 320kbps MP3 version of a particular Rachmaninoff recording (in the same way that I can fall asleep to a Cd quality or higher version).
Without knowing what I am listening to......and then checking the next morning.

If I can't fall asleep to the lower res version I may then make an annoying and presumptive forum post suggesting that my brain is busy filling in the gaps.

Sporky

4/6 on laptop with AKG K272HDs.

I'll give it another go on the PC with a DAC and Shure SRHs.

fretmeister

I got 2.

I'll get better results when my Russ Andrews power cable arrives.

Veganic

3/5.

I skipped Coldplay.
This was guesswork.  I couldn't tell the difference between the the 320 and the higher quality.  The 128 usually stood out.

Having listened to tapes I can't say I care much.


Edit: Samsung S7

Rocker

You would need to download the test to your computer, feed the output to a decent DAC and listen through your hi-fi or quality headphones. If I at 60 going on 61 can easily tell the difference between WAV and FLAC files of the same piece of music... So don't use age as a reason for getting a poor result in that test. If you can hear that a string or two on your guitar is slightly out of tune, your hearing is good enough. The technology is letting you down and not your hearing.

fretmeister

Rocker said:

You would need to download the test to your computer, feed the output to a decent DAC and listen through your hi-fi or quality headphones. If I at 60 going on 61 can easily tell the difference between WAV and FLAC files of the same piece of music... So don't use age as a reason for getting a poor result in that test. If you can hear that a string or two on your guitar is slightly out of tune, your hearing is good enough. The technology is letting you down and not your hearing.

I'm not convinced that an ability to detect a different pitch is the same as detecting a difference in quality.

When you did your comparison - who clicked play for you so you had no warning of which format was playing?

UnclePsychosis

<Geordie Accent>

Day 672 in the Big Brother house. Rocker is having double blind testing explained to him for the 500th time.

</Geordie Accent>

Clarky

my ears have been "Marshalled" for decades
I'm not even going to bother taking the test cos I won't hear a difference